Taxing Drivers By The Mile

Robert Morien wrote:
> "Bill Grunnah" > wrote:
>>
>> That's pretty much what they're doing with TVs over the next
>> couple years -- make everyone in the U.S. purchase new
>> televisions or adapters (virtually all of which are manufactured
>> overseas) so that the government can make money auctioning off
>> the spectrum.
>
> Just what in the united states isn't virtually all manufactured
overseas?

Guns, rockets, missiles...

"J.D. Baldwin" > wrote
> In the previous article, fbloogyudsr > wrote:
>> So your premise is incorrect in CA/WA, and only true in OR because
>> their revenue growth is 0.
>
> What are the figures?
>
> The ones I found on the web say California revenue grew over nine
> percent in 2003-2004 (I suppose it's too early for 2004-2005). I also
> found a chart in http://www.erfc.wa.gov/pubs/dec04.pdf that seems to
> indicate Washington state revenue has been steadily increasing since
> early 2003, and even the net decline they had was brief and trivial
> compared to the boom before and the recovery after.

Don't forget that the population of the Pacific coast states continued
to grow; revenue per person has continued to go down and that's the
important part for state/county services, especially since 50+% of the
budget goes for education. The graph and net revenue stuff also doesn't
take into account bond issues - CA balanced their budget by re-financing
their debt and issuing new bonds that have to be paid off.

For instance, the WA (and OR) budgets was "solved" by canceling
COLA raises to state employees and teachers, and using tobacco-
settlement money that was supposed to go to public health. Can't
go on forever borrowing from the future.

Floyd

In the previous article, fbloogyudsr > wrote:
> Don't forget that the population of the Pacific coast states
> continued to grow; revenue per person has continued to go down and
> that's the important part for state/county services, especially
> since 50+% of the budget goes for education.

Given the fact of "economies of scale" there is no good reason that
the simple fact of a decline in revenue per person *has* to mean a
decline in services.

Again, I am basing my general impression of this stuff on what I've
heard vs. what I've seen in Michigan (whoever started this thread
threw it into mi.misc for some reason) ... per capita spending and per
capita revenue are both *up*, and yet we keep hearing about this
horrible budget "crisis." Someone, somewhere, isn't leveling with us
and waiting for the press to get to the bottom of it hasn't been very
fruitful; all they do is parrot the government party line about the
"crisis."

> For instance, the WA (and OR) budgets was "solved" by canceling
> COLA raises to state employees and teachers, and using tobacco-
> settlement money that was supposed to go to public health. Can't
> go on forever borrowing from the future.

Works okay for the feds. Of course, the feds are allowed to print
money, so that's a special case.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / |to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Ward wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:42:28 -0500, "Paul" > wrote:
>>"Gary V" > wrote:
>>
>>>The argument in favor of GPS tracking is that then they will only
>>>charge you for the miles you travel in your state. For example,
>>>imagine OR passes this, and then you take a roadtrip from Portland,OR
>>>to Portland, ME. 7000 miles later you get back to OR with your
>>>transponder. You pull up to the pump, and suddenly they charge you
>>>$24.00 for gas and $87.00 for miles. GAAAK!
>>
>>And I'm sure those states outside of OR in your example will just love
>>the fact that you are paying tax to OR for driving on their roads....
>
> No, if it's GPS based, Oregon stops taxing you when you leave the
> state. Theoretically the state you entered would immediately start
> THEIR taxmeter running, and collect from you when you stop for gas.

But what if you don't stop in that state for gas? I rarely gas up in
Illinois when driving between Michigan and Wisconsin 'round the south-
ern tip o' Lake Michigan (I already pay to drive on their tollways for
all but three miles in Illinois, so why pay a gas tax on gasoline that's
already not cheap and not drive on the local roads at all?!?).

In that scenario, would the Wisconsin or Michigan gasoline retalier
have to forward a part of my gas tax back to Illinois? And what if I
used the Illinois Tollway System for all but three miles through that
state? Is the GPS smart enough to know not to "tax" me for those miles,
so that I only get hit up for three instead of 80 miles? Or do all
toll roads go away under this GPS pricing scheme? If not, and when the
toll roads get ALL the revenue from your trips along them and the
state gets NONE of the gas tax dollars they used to get when they
triple-taxed you, how to you make up for that loss of funding? Raise
the taxes even more? Any drivers who regularly use toll roads are
already getting hit up by state and local gasoline taxes as well as
having to pay the tolls, so I'd think the states with toll road facil-
ities would not like this proposal, as the ability to credit the toll
roads directly (and cutting out the triple-taxation) would sbe right
there and easy to implement...

Plus, the assumption above Oregon -> Washington assumes that ALL
states and provinces would simultaneously adopt this new high-tech
solution to a low-tech problem. If Washington DIDN'T implement such
a system after Oregon did, anyone near the border or regularly travel-
ing across it would then be incentivized to simply top off in Oregon
(no sales tax on the actual gasoline anymore) and do as much of their
driving on the Washington side as possible (no "per mile" taxing there).
Sounds like a problem.

Plus, as I alluded to in the above paragraph, why implement such a
costly, high-tech solution (which won't work all the time -- trees
and tall buildings as well as well-placed tinfoil can easily block
GPS signals) when you have the perfect low-tech solution sitting there
staring you right in the face today -- and it's already implemented!
Just index the gasoline tax to inflation and make it a percentage of
the cost of the gasoline and you've solved most of the problem using
an already-existing system. Then, if you need to account for the
growth in use of hybrids, index the gasoline tax to the sale and use
of hybrids -- the more hybrids on the roads, the higher the gasoline
tax goes. The hybrid owners don't notice the difference, as they're
paying about the same price total while the gas-guzzling car owners
have a greater incentive to either get rid of the guzzler and buy a
more fuel-efficient car or just put-up-and-shut-up and pay the higher
cost and enjoy their guzzler. It's not perfect, but you don't need to
rely on technology that can fail or, in the case of GPS, be turned off
or degraded at a moment's notice by the government in the name of
"combating terrorism."

Later,
Chris

--
Chris Bessert

http://www.michiganhighways.org
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org
http://www.ontariohighways.org

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:58:11 GMT, Bob Ward >
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:42:28 -0500, "Paul" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gary V" > wrote in message
groups.com...
>>> The argument in favor of GPS tracking is that then they will only
>>> charge you for the miles you travel in your state. For example,
>>> imagine OR passes this, and then you take a roadtrip from Portland,OR
>>> to Portland, ME. 7000 miles later you get back to OR with your
>>> transponder. You pull up to the pump, and suddenly they charge you
>>> $24.00 for gas and $87.00 for miles. GAAAK!
>>
>>And I'm sure those states outside of OR in your example will just love
>>the fact that you are paying tax to OR for driving on their roads....
>>
>>
>>
>No, if it's GPS based, Oregon stops taxing you when you leave the
>state. Theoretically the state you entered would immediately start
>THEIR taxmeter running, and collect from you when you stop for gas.
>
And if you drive through one or more states without having to stop for
gas?

Gary V wrote:

> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than
> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go -
> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15
> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders,
> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so
> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover
> expenses.)

Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's
true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free?

--
Cheers, Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese.

In article >, Ed Stasiak wrote:

> I ain't walking a mile at the butt crack of dawn in the dead of
> winter to get to a bus/train stop and I refuse to live in a 'hive'
> just to make mass transit possible!

Buy your guns and armored vehicles now, because the 'hive' is the plan of
third worlding the USA. The right will continue it's attempt to wage
equalize us with the third world world meanwhile the left will tax us
into poverty so we cannot consume more than they say is 'right' and such
that we can not retain more income than they deem 'fair'.

Oh, and I doubt the mass transit system will ever be built.

In article >, Chris Bessert wrote:

> But what if you don't stop in that state for gas? I rarely gas up in
> Illinois

Don't worry, IL will tax you, C(r)ook county will tax you, lake county
will tax you the city of chicago will tax you, and every suburb along the
route will tax you with a GPS milage based gizmo tax system. IL runs like
organized crime, everyone has to get their cut.

Ed Stasiak wrote:

>> "Dave Head" > wrote
>>
>> use the proceeds to build some new rail technology that is
>> available to carry cars and
>>
>> 1) Runs on electricity, preferably nuclear.
>> 2) Runs a whole lot faster than roads can be driven.
>> 3) Runs at zero emissions.
>
> This would require tearing up entire urban areas and rebuilding
> them.

Where is Mrs. O'Leary's cow when you need it?

--

Stu

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:59:38 -0500, The Etobian >
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:58:11 GMT, Bob Ward >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:42:28 -0500, "Paul" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Gary V" > wrote in message
egroups.com...
>>>> The argument in favor of GPS tracking is that then they will only
>>>> charge you for the miles you travel in your state. For example,
>>>> imagine OR passes this, and then you take a roadtrip from Portland,OR
>>>> to Portland, ME. 7000 miles later you get back to OR with your
>>>> transponder. You pull up to the pump, and suddenly they charge you
>>>> $24.00 for gas and $87.00 for miles. GAAAK!
>>>
>>>And I'm sure those states outside of OR in your example will just love
>>>the fact that you are paying tax to OR for driving on their roads....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>No, if it's GPS based, Oregon stops taxing you when you leave the
>>state. Theoretically the state you entered would immediately start
>>THEIR taxmeter running, and collect from you when you stop for gas.
>>
>And if you drive through one or more states without having to stop for
>gas?


You pay the **** tax instead. Remember - coffee and tea is never sold
- only rented.